Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM101788 0\' '"'-\' I I MINUTES WEEK OF OCTOBER 11, 1988 Chairman B. G. Brown called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner Larry W. Dennison and Commissioner George C. Brown. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS BEARING re: Peti t:J.on for the Vacation of County Road Riaht-of-Wav; Portion of Elizabeth Street and Platted Alleva, Eisenbeis Bav View Addition; Dale Goddard, Ap'Plicant: Public Works Administrative Secretary, Eileen Simon, explained that this request by Dale Goddard is to vacate Elizabeth Street lying between Blocks 11 and 12 and Blocks 11 and 18 along with the ten foot wide platted alleys in both blocks, in the plat of Eisenbeis Bay View Addition. The width of the road requested for vacation is sixty feet and the area to be vacated is 210 feet in length between ~locks 11 and 12 and 210 feet in length between Blocks 11, and 18. The road'vacation is being requested in order to better utilize the property. The Planning Commission reviewed the vacation request and recommends that the Board approve the vacation of the alleys in Block 11, 11 and 18 and to deny vacation of the alley in Block 12 as well as the portion of Elizabeth Street. This recommendation is based on possible future circulation requirements. The Public Works Department has reviewed the request and has no objection to it. The Assessors Office reported that the assessed value of the area to be vacated is $6,940.00 which would require compensation of $3,410.00. Puget Power has no objection to the request, however, they require a ten foot easement for installation of an underground power cable. Ms. Simon then reviewed the public testimony taken at the Planning Commission hearing. Rachel Nathanson, Senior Planner, submitted a memo advising that if the Board moved to approve this vacation request and overturned the Planning Commission recommendation, that they consider securing a buffer strip along Highway 20. Public Works Director, Gary Rowe, then read a memo from Planning Director David Goldsmi th which stated that, in addi tion to the suggestion noted by Ms. Nathanson, the Public Works Department has budgeted for a transportation and circulation study for the Glen Cove area and it may be best for the Board ~o table action on this request, until that is completed. Gary Rowe confirmed that the Public Works Department has budgeted for a transportation plan for the Glen Cove area and he agrees that action on this .~OL 14rA~ Q 3621 " J . i commissionert' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 17, 1988 request be either tabled or denied if the Board feels they need more information dn transportation and circulation. I I Commissioner IGeorge Brown asked Mr.. Goddard if there was any reason to vacate the alleys if the street is not vacated also? Mr. Goddard stated that he feels. that tth e propertyw ould be more marketable if it is not broken up to the extent t at it is currently. The discussion turned to the impacts to traffic circ lation in this area, if this vacation is approved. Chairman Bro opened the public hearing and asked for comments for or against this vacation request. Page: 2 Dale Goddard: Mr. Goddard explained that he made this application tor vacation bec use Highway 20 runs through the middle of Blocks 18 and 11:of the Eisenbeit Bay View Addition. The property is designated as 1I1itJht industrial". The larger the parcel, Mr. Goddard, added the more attractive the propertylwould be to someone purchasing it. Across the road a thirty foot buffer sltrip has been donated to the County, and Mr. Goddard stated tbat he would be ~illing to donate such a strip also. Richard shorJ: Mr. Short stated that the parcel that Mr. Goddard mentio~ed across the ~treet from this property is mainly used for a mini stor.ge facility whiqh generates very little traffic. However, there are propetty owners who o~ small parcels in this area and the traffic will increaselin the future. I If this street is vacated it will cause a traffic bottlen.ck in the area. I , , Peter Badame Peter Badame, representing the Planning Commission, stated that the PIa ing Commission had. no problem with the vacation of the alleys. The concern ith regard to vacating a portion of the street is that mQre information ~s needed from the transportation and circulation plan before any streets are dlosed in that area. ! I : Chairman Bro~ closed the public hearing after determining that no one e~se wanted to sp~ak for or against the proposed vacation. I Commissioner I Dennison stated that his main concern with approving r~ad vacations iSipreserving the orderly development of traffic flow. comm~s- sioner Georg1 Brown moved to deny the vacation petition in its' entirety until such time as the transportation plan is completed by the Public Works Department. .commissioner Dennison seconded the motion. Dale Goddard. Mr. Goddard asked if action on the petition could simply be tabled until lafter the transportation plan is completed. Commissioner IGeorge Brown revised his motion to table action on this vacation petition unt~l the transportation plan is completed. Commissioner Dennison seconded the Imotion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. ' ~ i PLAOING Arm BUILDING PUBLIC MEETING: For the PurDoseof AdoDtina, Rejecting or setting of Public ... Bearings. on the ProDosed Jefferson County IDlDlementina Ordinance: (See also. Mi4utes of 10/10/88) Planning and Building Department Directc>r, David Goldsm th, read a letter dated 10/12/88 from the Prosecuting Attor*ey to the Board ,regarding the Planning Commission's resolution and recommen4a- tion on the ~raft implementing ordinance which was forwarded to the Board. i ' i ' I Chairman Br~rm stated that he would like to afford those present the opportunity ~o state their viewpoint on this issue. I 3im Olsen: Jr. Olsen stated that he owns a business in Quilcene, and lives in Brinnon. He supports the pr.osecuting Attorney's recommendation that t.he Board have a least one more public hearing to go over the new draft copy before it iSlconsidered for adoption. He added that in Paragraph 1.5 the I I . VOL 14 rAGE o 3622 " . l' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 17, 1988 Page: 3 chance for the individual communities to work with their own destinies and develop their own Community Development Plans is strengthened. It does state, however, that the county-wide items will override a Community Development Plan. He asked that the ordinance be made more definite so that people would know what strength the Community Development Plans have versus what would be overridden in those plans. Richard Thornton, Brinnon: Mr. Thornton asked if the term "community", as used in the document, only applies to incorporated communities? Chairman Brown responded that there are no incorporated communities that would come under this plan. The communities with development plans are listed in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Thornton then stated that he feels that the Board should hold quite a few public hearings. He added that he doesn't see how the people in Brinnon can apply this plan to the people in the West End, because each community has different needs. He said that the Board should have a public meeting in every district, and not just here (in Port Townsend) and Chimacum. Commissioner George Brown said that he would like to see a hearing held in Chimacum, Quilcene, Brinnon and one in the West End of the County. Barbara Fisk: Ms. Fisk stated that there is a lot of good in the plan as it is written, and she can see that hours and hours of work were put in it. It seems to her that a lot of this plan will place a big club in the hands of Mr. Goldsmith and the Commissioners and she has seen them in action before. You take a little thing and people come in and give testimony and everyone gets a chance to blow off steam and then you (the Commissioners) do exactly as you feel. This will plunge the County into more and more litigation by private parties, and it is helping the constant chipping away of individual rights. We need good rules and regulations, but Ms. Fisk noted, she cannot accept putting in bad ones along with good ones. Let's root out the bad ones. Commissioner Dennison asked if Ms. Fisk has some specific areas of the ordinance that she would like to see revised? Ms. Fisk stated that she has not had time to write them down, but she will do so and submit them later. Richard Short, Hadlock: Mr. Short stated that he owns the Short Storage in Hadlock. Before he purchased the property he received a letter from the Planning Department stating that he could use the property for anything he wished to use it for. He purchased the property, cleaned it up and put a storage building on about 1 1/2 acres and there is five acres left. He is opposed to any more control on the land in the Hadlock area. Darvl Moealina, Quilcene: Mr. Moegling stated that he has looked at the procedures for the Comprehensive Plan and the Implementing Ordinance and noticed that it is covering an area where the Planning Commission or the Planning Department prompt the public interest. He said that he is beginning to think that the public is more ignorant, than not interested, because of the amount of people that he runs into that don't know anything about it. He suggested that the Planning Commission do articles in the newspaper or some kind of advertising to help everyone in the County become aware of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Brown responded that if the Board takes the action to move forward with the implementing ordinance on their own and go to public hearings, he would hope that everyone will make themselves familiar with the plan and state their concerns and recommendations for improvement. Karen Benson: Ms. Benson asked how to go about getting a copy of this plan? She has tried to call and the line has been busy. People have said that they can't get copies. David Goldsmith advised that there are plans available now in the Planning Department office. Copies have been mailed to people that called and asked for them. Mari Phillips: Ms. Phillips stated that she is very much opposed to the ordinance and feels that the Board should totally reject it. She doesn't see how the Board can justify putting it on the people of the rural Jefferson VO~ 14 rA~E o 36.23 . . , , . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 11, 1988 Page: 4 County, given its' population. She does not think it warrants it or that it is needed. specifically, Ms. Phillips noted, the part on home businesses is so restrictive that it is endangering a species that is the backbone of the County. Dan Thompson, Quilcene: Mr. Thompson stated that he has been concerned about the County Comprehensive Plan since its' inception. I have maintained that it is unconstitutional, unhealthy to the livelihood and rights of individuals and businesses. If you read the goals, objectives and so on of the plan, you will see that the whole thing is predicated on the idea that people are not individuals. They exist as parts of a larger organism such as a community or whatever. Mr. Thompson continued that he would not deny that there are communities, but the only kind of rights that there are, are individual right. There are no community rights, only the rights of individuals. Any ordinance that attempts to set up a group of individuals to determine what's to the interest of everybody else, to deny their property rights, to vote them away, to abrogate them to various boards and commissions, is totally un- american. After discussing the recent trends in America on individual rights, Mr. Thompson concluded by stating that he feels there should be some more meetings because if more people knew about this (implementing ordinance) they would vote it down, if it were up to them. Jess Covinaton, Hadlock: Being one of the persons most affected by adverse noise levels, Mr. Covington said that he would like to see the meetings extended out to encompass as many people as possible. people need to have a chance to come to a meeting to have a better understanding of this ordinance, and he would like to see the noise level issue to be looked into more thoroughly. Bill Steinrod, Marrowstone Island: Mr. Steinrod stated that he has heard various people talk about rural Jefferson County, which apparently is something we'd like to keep, but it will not stay rural left to its' own devices. With the influx of people, you must develop some sort of regula- tion. John Illman, Nordland: Mr. Illman stated that he has followed this process very thoroughly since its' inception and he understands what is in the ordinance. I favor the ordinance. As much as he would like to see the Board pass the ordinance as it is, he feels that it is a watered down version of what it should be. He feels it would be the best process to go to public hearings. In light of the Prosecuting Attorney's letter and recommendation, Commis- sioner Dennison moved that an ordinance implementing the County Comprehensive Plan is in the best interest of the public, and that the draft implementing ordinance be sent to the Planning Department and Planning Commission for them to develop a report. Upon receipt of that report by the Board, pUblic hearings will be set throughout the County. Commissioner George Brown seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Discussion ensued regarding the Prosecuting Attorney's letter. Commissioner Dennison asked Harry Pollard, Planning Commission Member, what his intent was in the Planning Commission vote on their resolution, and if he intended that the resolution be a recommendation to the Board for approval of the implementing ordinance. Harry Pollard stated that as far as he was concerned he was not voting for approval of the ordinance, but was voting to pass it on to the Board for consideration. Chairman Brown clarified that Commissioner Dennison's motion is intended to allow the Board to take the draft ordinance to public hearings after a report is received from the Planning Department and Planning Commission, as recommended by the Prosecuting Attorney. Jean Phillips: Mrs. Phillips asked if the Board can reject this draft ordinance as it was sent from the Planning Commission? The Board indicated that they could do that. Commissioner George Brown stated that he doesn't understand why the Board needs to consider the motion on this draft ordinance, when all that should . VOL 14 fAGE o 36~4 r . . . , . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 17, 1988 Page: .5 be done is to ask the Planning Commission to change their resolution. If that is the case, Chairman Brown responded, then no action is needed today. The Board would just send the resolution back to the Planning Commission and ask. them for clarification. Commissioner George Brown then withdrew the second to Commissioner Dennison's motion. John Brown: John Brown stated that he is not totally sure that the Board can do that. He understood that the Board could adopt, reject, or modify the ordinance according to State law. Chairman Brown added that if the Board wrote to the Planning Commission asking them for a clarification on the resolution that they sent to the Board, to clarify the fact that the resolution recommends that the Board approve the draft ordinance, then that would clear up the legal question about the Planning Commission resolution. Jack Westerman, Incomina President of the Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce: Jack Westerman stated that the Chamber of Commerce concern is that the Board hold public hearings on this document. Commissioner George Brown said that he wants to clarify this in his mind and also the pUblic's and then read RCW 36.640. After reading the RCW he re- seconded Commissioner Dennison's motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Gene Seton: Mr. Seton, member of the Planning Commission, asked if the Planning Commission could send the draft ordinance to the Board with a recommendation that it not be' approved? Commissioner Dennison responded that the Board of Commissioners has requested a draft ord:J.nance from the Planning Commission that will implement the comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission had the choice of sending the County Commissioners an ordinance or not sending them an ordinance. They cannot send the County Commissioners a draft ordinance and recommend that they not pass it. Chairman Brown added that the County Comm:J.ssioners could have put together a draft implem.en"ting ordinance themselves and then they would have sent that to the Planning Commission for a report. When the report was received the Board would then hold public hearings on it. That is essentially what is being done now, even though the Ordinance was developed by the Planning Commission instead of the County Commissioners. Barbara F:J.sk: Barbara Fisk asked, that when this process is finished (public hearings) and the public doesn't like the draft ordinance, will the Board put it on the ballot and let people vote for it? Chairman Brown stated that it isn't mandatory and the vote would only be advisory, but it is a possibility. Daryl Moealina: Will the public hearings be the County Commissioners' and when will you decide how many public hearings? When the report is received from the Planning Commission, Chairman Brown stated, w:J.ll be when the Board will decide how many public hearings to hold. Bvron Swiaart: Mr. Swigart asked if the Planning Commission report is negative, then'what is the procedure? The RCW just says that a report is submitted, it doesn't say what will be done about the report, Chairman Brown responded, but the Board intends to hold public hearings no matter what comes back in the report. Dan Thomoson: Since the planners are subordinate to the County Commissioners and therefore operate at their pleasure, isn't it the case that the County Commissioners could reject the whole thing rather than sending it back? The Board indicated that is correct. Richard Thornton: Mr. Thornton asked if each of the three commissioners would be at each of these public hearings? The Board indicated that they would each attend each hearing. Mr. Thornton continued by asking that the Board take a vote of the people at these meetings as to who wants this ordinance and who doesn't and then listen to the people. VOl 14 rAGE o 3625 , . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 17, 1988 Page: 6 Karen Benson: Ms. Benson asked if the Board had figured out the economic impact of having this ordinance versus not having it? I Chairman Brown answered no, and added that it would be a fairly long process to try and figure that out, and he doesn't know how to quantify this or how accurate this type of determination would be. Ms. Benson then asked how this ordinance would effect the small businesses that are not in the areas designated as commercial? Sarbara Fisk: Ms. Fisk asked if a time frame will be set to allow people to get these documents and read them and then have the public hearings? Chairman Brown stated that he doesn't see that there is anyway that hearings will be held before the first of the year. state Env:J.ronmen'tal Policy Act Review: To ReD&ir and Extend Two Existina Piers and Construct a Floatino Dock Secured Between One Ex:J.stina and one PropOsed DolDhin. Lower Hadlock: Roy Hewell. ADDlican't: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reviewed this project to repair and extend two existing piers and construct a floating dock adjacent to the warehouse buildings and existing dock in the Lower Hadlock area. The shoreline in this area has no bank and a sandy beach with some dune grass on the waters edge. An Army Corps of Engineers Section ~o permit, a State Department of Fisheries hydraulic permit and a County Shoreline Substantial Development permit are required on this project. Mr. Pearson then reviewed the environmental checklist and the two proposed mitigative measures for this project. Chairman Brown asked if there have been any objections from the neighboring property owners? None have been received yet, Mr. Pearson responded, but the adjacent property owners will be notified of this proposed project because a Shoreline Permit is required. Commissioner Dennison moved to issue a mitigated determination of non- significance for the Roy Newell project. Commissioner George Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. State Environmental Pol:J.cy Act Review: sawmill, aenterRoad: Gerard West. Inc., ADDlicant, Paul Hendv, RelJresentative: (See also Minutes of October 10, 1988) Rachel Nathanson, Senior Planner, reported that she has been in touch with Mr. Hendy and he has not had a chance to get the noise analysis of his existing mill in Joyce which he proposes to move to the new sawmill site in Center. He will be in touch with the Planning Department when he has that information and this project can then to put back on the Board's agenda. Chairman Brown then read two letters about this project from adjacent property owners. State Environmental PoliCY Act Review; Inner Harbor Subdivision and Shoreline Permit. Port Ludlow; PODS Resources, ADDlicant: Planning and Building Department Director, David Goldsmith reported that in the Depart- ment's review of the original checklist for the Inner Harbor Subdivision, the eventuali ty of the planned residential lots having docks and piers con- structed on them was not taken into consideration. The potential impacts of up to 39 docks on single lots, 28 of which would front the Inner Harbor, as well as the possible placement of mooring buoys were discussed in a memo presented by David Goldsmith to the Board. The following concerns were noted. Water Quali tv: The Inner Harbor of Port Ludlow Bay has the poorest flushing action in the Bay. Aesthetic Impacts/Shoreline Use: currently none of the shorelines associated with the Port Ludlow development have privately owned docks on them. All of the tidelands in the Port Ludlow development are owned by the Homeowners Association for all the lot owners to use and enjoy. Eventually the Inner Harbor tidelands will be included in those owned by the Homeowners Association, which will satisfy the open space requirement of the subdivision ordinance. , \fOL 14~AGE O "";C"~.~(-- ~~",~U' ~ . "4 )'.... Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 17, 1988 Page: 7 If docks were developed across these tidelands it would create obstructions to the use of the community open space area. Transportation: There is a considerable amount of use in the summertime of the Inner Harbor area for boat anchorage. If docks and piers are developed it would cause congestion in the area. The Planning Department suggests that mitigation on the project include restricting docks and moorings from the Inner Harbor. The Planning Depart- ment will be developing a final list of mitigation for this project from the comments that are received. State Enviromaental Pol:J.cv Act aerie.: Industrial aomolex of Six BuJldinas, Glen Cove Industrial Area: Michael MiuJr)er . Aoolicant: Senior Planner Rachel Nathanson reported that this proposed project is located on Lot 3 of the Zamperin Short Plat (the property immediately north of the Chevron Bulk Station) in the Glen Cove Industrial Park area. The development will be done in phases and will include a total of six buildings on a two acre site" Phase I will include three buildings; 3,600 square feet and 2,640 square feet (office and warehousing) and another 3,600 (warehouse) square feet. The other buildings will be put in under Phase II. The first parking area will be located between the two building closest to the western side of the property. Rachel Nathanson then reviewed the environmental checklist for the property and the nine proposed mitigative measures. The applicant has been given a copy of the Highway 20 Corridor Policies so that he is aware of the buffer requirements. Commissioner George Brown moved to issue and mitigated determination of non- significance and lead agency status for the Michael D. Minkler project. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Shoreline Setback Variance Reclues1:: To AccOJDlIlodate a Sinale Faailv Residence and Se'D1:ic Svs1:em: Bridaehaven: Susan and Stan Kr:J.eael, AJ)olican1:s: Associate Planner, Jim Pearson, reported that Mr. & Mrs. Kriegel are asking for a variance from the shoreline setback for their single family residence and septic system to be located in Bridgehaven. One house next to this lot is setback 27 feet from the shoreline, however there is no house on the other side. To use the averaging method of the two setbacks (27 feet and the regulation setback of 30 feet) this house could be setback 28 1/2 feet. The Kriegel's are requesting a 25 foot setback or a 3 1/2 foot variance. The adjacent property owners have no objection to the 25 foot setback as requested. Commissioner Dennison moved to approve the 3 1/2 foot shoreline setback variance as requested by the Kriegel's. Commissioner George Brown seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Interaovernmental Reviews: Commissioner Dennison moved that the County has no conflict with the applications for federal funding submitted for the following projects: Discovery View Apartments Olympic Area Agency on Aging 1988-1991 Area Plan Update Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council Retired Senior Volunteer Program City of Port Townsend, Fort Worden Centennial Pavilion Commissioner George Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. < VOL 14 rAGE 3627 o <\Ie ~ .. ~ ~ '" ~ 'J <0-. Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 17, 1988 Page: 8 HtJMAN SERVICES CORTRACT No. 1440-62179 (4) re: Addit:J.onal Fiscal Year 1989 Alcohol. Drug Abuse Trea1:aen1:. R."~bili 1:ation and. :Federal Youth services Funds; washinaton State DeD8.rtment of Social and Health Service: Commis- sioner Dennison moved to approve the fourth amendment to contract #1440-62179 with the State Department of Social and Health services for additional fiscal year 1989 funding for the Human Services Department. Commissioner George Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Elected and ADDOinted Offic:J.als re: 1989 Budaet: The Jefferson County appointed and elected officials came before the Board to discuss staffing needs for 1989. i' I JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS \ ~~~ht/ B.G. Brown, Chairman ~#1 ~ ~'1?'::-:r:::~ ~ ~ George ~ ~. Member VOL 14 rAGE o 3628